http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art20101029345965

By Tony Amokeodo
Friday, 29 Oct 201

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, refused the bid of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), to withdraw the charge against Anosike brothers over the alleged dissipation of the Daily Times of Nigeria Plc’s assets as Justice Pat Ajoku dismissed the AGF’s application on the matter.


The Federal Government had through the AGF, filed a 20-count charge against some purported directors of DTN- Fidelis Anosike, his brother, Noel, their associates: Nicholas Okoye and Gogo Kurubo and their firm, Folio Communications Limited.


The Government had accused the suspects of allegedly stealing about N3bn assets of DTN shortly after another judge of the FHC, Justice Okechukwu Okeke, voided the sale of the majority stake in the DTN to Folio.


The judge had held that due process was not followed in the sale, saying that the action was illegitimate.


In his ruling on the AGF’s application to withdraw the charge, Justice Ajoku held that although the AGF had the powers under Section 174 (1) (C) of the 1999 Constitution to institute criminal charge against anyone and discontinue it at any stage, such powers must be exercised in accordance with the provision of sub-section three of the section.


The sub-section 3 states, “In exercising his powers under this section, the AGF shall have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.”


According to the judge , such condition requires that the AGF appears in person to either apply orally or through a written permission, for the court to allow such discontinuance.


She further observed that the prosecution was acting without the consent of the complainant in the case, saying that the practice was that the complainant and prosecution ought to be in harmony in the trial of criminal cases.


The judge consequently fixed November 30 for the arraignment of the accused just as they were represented in court by their lawyers.


The AGF’s lawyer, Mr. E. Akissa, had earlier stunned the court when he acknowledged the absence of the accused, claiming that their absence was sequel to the inability of the prosecution to serve them with the charge.


He further informed the court about the AGF’s instruction, asking him to withdraw the charge while he refused to profer any reason for the AGF’s decision.


But the lawyer to some the DTN’s owners, Mr. Linus Idu, raised objection against the AGF’s application, claiming that the action was strange and irregular.


He also alleged that the AGF was acting to protect the accused persons at the expense of the complainants, saying that the proper thing was for the AGF to ensure that the accused persons were in court and not to argue on why they were absent.